VS,J W.P No.36647 of 2025 1 APHC010718192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 36647/2025 Between: 1. D. HUSSAIN BEE, W/O. D.V.RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. FAIR SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.1345021,R/O.D.NO.1-55,PERUSOMALA VILLAGE, SANJAMALA MANDAL, NANDYAL, DISTRICT.-518165 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. -522237 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 518501 3. THE TAHSILDAR, SANJAMALA MANDAL, NANDYALDISTRICT. - 518165 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondents in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc.No.CS//561/2025 dated 26.03.2025 without conducting any VS,J W.P No.36647 of 2025 2 enquiry and indefinitely as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of India consequently set aside the same and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased suspend the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No. CS//561/2025, dated 26.03.2025 by continuing the petitioner as a F.P Shop dealer of Shop No. 1345021,situated at Perusomala Village,Sanjamala Mandal,Nandyal District.By enabling him to supply to the card holders pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES VS,J W.P No.36647 of 2025 3 The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc.No.CS//561/2025 dated 26.03.2025 without conducting any enquiry and indefinitely is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of Constitution of India consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders….” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for shop No.1345021 situated at Perusomala Village, Sanjamala Mandal, Nandyal District. From the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaints either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities. b) While the things stood thus, basing on a report submitted by the 3rd respondent stating that the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Nandyal, Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Allagadda along with the Village Revenue Officer, Perusomala Village conducted a surprise visit to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 12.03.2025 and during the course of the said inspection, identified certain variations in PDS rice as well as sugar. Basing on a report submitted by the Tahsildar, Sanjamala Mandal, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice on VS,J W.P No.36647 of 2025 4 18.03.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner duly framing the following five charges against the petitioner: “Charge 1: The inspection team verified the F.P shop 30 kgs PDS Rice less’and 03 packets of Sugar Excess stock while compare to ground balance clearly established the fact that the dealer has indulged in the malpractices in the distribution of ECs to the card holders under public distribution system and violated clause 29 (a) under APTPDS (Control) order, 2018. Charge 2: The inspection team inspected at the time of inspection the F.P Shop dealer not attends at the time of inspection. In enquiry of card holders they said FP Shop dealer his not residing in the village. She residing at Koilkuntla town and not submit Authorization letter and violated Provisions of Form II Sub Clause 8 (20), 7, 8 (12) under APTPDS Control Order, 2018. Charge 3: The inspection team verified the F.P Shop dealer has not exhibited stock board in the shop and violated Provisions of clause 12 (n) under APTPDS Control Order, 2018. Charge 4: The inspection team verified the F.P Shop dealer has not maintaining work Hours in the shop and violated Provisions of clause 8 (14) under APTPDS Control Order, 2018. Charge 5: The inspection team verified the F.P Shop dealer has not maintaining Accounts Properly in the shop and violated Provisions of clause 8 (6) under APTPDS Control Order, 2018.” VS,J W.P No.36647 of 2025 5 c) The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that, though the charges are vague in nature, the 2nd respondent has suspended the petitioner’s authorization, pending enquiry, vide impugned proceedings dated 26.03.2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that in pursuance of the show-cause notice dated 18.03.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner did not submit any explanation, as such, the 2nd respondent placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension for a maximum period of 90 days, basing upon the material available on record i.e., the report of the Tahsildar dated 12.03.2025. However, it appears that no such enquiry has been conducted till date, even though the maximum period of 90 days has elapsed. 5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies vide proceedings dated 30.12.2025 of the respondent No.2, a third-party interest has been created over the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on a temporary basis. 6. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent suspended the petitioner’s authorization solely relying upon the report of the Tahsildar pending enquiry for a maximum period of 90 days. Even after a lapse of 90 days, the 2nd respondent has not concluded the enquiry against the petitioner, which is contrary to the law laid VS,J W.P No.36647 of 2025 6 down by the Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima1 , wherein a Division Bench held as follows: “2. We have gone through the impugned judgment which is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab (1) AIR 1982 (S.C.), 1965. In that case, the prescribed form of licence contained the clause for the period of suspension to be maximum for 90 days. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge shows that in essence and substance what was meant by him is that the period of 90 days is a reasonable period to conclude the enquiry and the continuance of it beyond 90 days would be unreasonable and shall be, hence, taken as quashed. As we see it was in the nature of a direction to complete the enquiry within 90 days than laying down a general proposition of law that the maximum period of suspension could be only for 90 days. We agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that the order of suspension cannot be used as a pretext for indefinite postponement of the operation of the fair price shop dealership making it in effect cancellation of the dealership. An order of suspension, like every executive and administrative act, has to be founded upon fair play and lack of arbitrariness. The continuation of order of the suspension indefinitely is whole arbitrary and cannot be countenanced. But we must also rush to add that what is reasonable period of suspension will vary from case to case depending upon various factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision, since the impugned proceedings are of 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 VS,J W.P No.36647 of 2025 7 March, 2025, instead of going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry after affording due opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 05.01.2026 KGR